You are on page 1of 2

Case Digest 4 Aguilar v Siasat

Facts:

Spouses Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar (the Aguilar


spouses) died, intestate and without debts, Included in their estate are two
parcels of land
In June 1996, petitioner Rodolfo S. Aguilar filed with the RTC of Bacolod
City (Bacolod RTC) a civil case for mandatory injunction with damages
against respondent Edna G. Siasat alleged that petitioner is the only son
and sole surviving heir of the Aguilar spouses; that he (petitioner)
discovered that the subject titles were missing, and thus he suspected that
someone from the Siasat clan could have stolen the same.
In her Answer,8 respondent claimed that petitioner is not the son and sole
surviving heir of the Aguilar spouses, but a mere stranger who was raised
by the Aguilar spouses out of generosity and kindness of heart; that
petitioner is not a natural or adopted child of the Aguilar spouses; that since
Alfredo Aguilar predeceased his wife, Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar, the latter
inherited the conjugal share of the former; that upon the death of
Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar, her brothers and sisters inherited her estate as
she had no issue; and that the subject titles were not stolen, but entrusted
to her for safekeeping by Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar, who is her aunt. By
way of counterclaim, respondent prayed for an award of moral and
exemplary damages, and attorneys fees.

Issue:

Whether the petitioner can not prove filiation to the Spouse Aguilar who is
the owner of the land due to the lost of his Certificate of Live Birth and Alfredo
Aguilars SSS Form E-1is a mere proof of open and continuous possession.

Ruling:
No.

it must be concluded that petitioner who was born on March 5, 1945, or


during the marriage of Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria Siasat-Aguilar 28 and
before their respective deaths29 has sufficiently proved that he is the
legitimate issue of the Aguilar spouses. As petitioner correctly argues,
Alfredo Aguilars SSS Form E-1 (Exhibit "G") satisfies the requirement for
proof of filiation and relationship to the Aguilar spouses under Article 172 of
the Family Code; by itself, said document constitutes an "admission of
legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument
and signed by the parent concerned."
Petitioner has shown that he cannot produce his Certificate of Live Birth
since all the records covering the period 1945-1946 of the Local Civil
Registry of Bacolod City were destroyed, which necessitated the
introduction of other documentary evidence particularly Alfredo Aguilars
SSS Form E-1 (Exhibit "G") to prove filiation. It was erroneous for the CA
to treat said document as mere proof of open and continuous possession of
the status of a legitimate child under the second paragraph of Article 172 of
the Family Code; it is evidence of filiation under the first paragraph thereof,
the same being an express recognition in a public instrument.